Monday, May 31, 2010

Critical to the success of statist governments throughout history has been the control of information available to the general public.

Indeed the founding fathers of our nation understood the critical nature a free and unlettered press played in the existence of a free republic. Hence the drafting of the first amendment to the Constitution... Which reads as follows.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press...

Clearly the framers of our Constitution understood that for a people to remain free they must secure the right to free and dissenting speech as well as a free and unbiased press. Today, at this very moment, there are forces at work that wish to abridge these very principals in the name of political correctness, multiculturalism , and political ideology.

President Barrack Hussein Obama,and his statist administration, is determined to federalize the news in the same way he has the banking, auto, and health industries. In short this means the federal government taking control of the news that is available to the people. Ask yourselves how long it will be before we have a Ministry Of Information that is controlled and guided by the dictates of the government in power at any given time.

The Federal Trade Commission's document on "reinventing journalism" can be found here. It is a document that should give liberty minded individuals a reason to be highly concerned. Should this "reinventing journalism" become a reality it will have dramatic effects on journalism, particularly the internet and the freedom political bloggers currently enjoy.

* Journalists must understand that there is no way the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press will survive if the federal government regulates the news industry as envisioned by the FTC. Those who accept at face value protests to the contrary or the professions of pure intentions by advocates of government takeover of the news business are, at best, incredibly naive.

* Journalists who remain silent or apathetic about what is being prepared by the FTC for their profession become unintentional accessories in the strangulation of independent journalism.

* Journalists who support or assist, for any reason, the FTC process are accomplices in the strangulation of independent journalism.

It is not only time journalists wake up and recognize the threat Obama's FTC presents to a free press and prople. It is also time the general American public wakes up to the very real possibility of a state run and controlled press. Call it socialism if you will, however given the realities of the present time this would be more appropriately labeled fascism.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

I am a strong supporter of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 and the states new immigration law. In fact I believe more American sovereign states ought to enact effective immigration policy based on Federal Law already on the books, however not enforced for years. When the Fed fails the people the states have both the right and obligation to fill the gap. And this is exactly what Arizona did with Senate Bill 1070.

The recent protest in Phoenix against the new immigration law was met with soft and unrepresentative reporting by the main stream leftist media. A more accurate account of the socialist anti illegal immigration rally is to be found at American Power.

The following are but a few visual images that went un-shown by the mainstream illegitimate press. Again h/t to American Power.

I believe the pictures speak the obvious. Any rational thought was lost here. The real issue for those attending this rally was for open borders and the intention of vilifying a reasonable attempt by Arizona to control ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Hmm, The larger question is this... With a vast majority of Americans favoring Arizona's law when will the illegitimate press and the soft Obama administration get the real picture and feel the heartbeat of America.

Rational Nation USA reprints the following from LIHERALDand makes no claim as to originality of thought or content. The article is informative and well written. Americans all across this great land can benefit from the understanding of, and history surrounding Memorial Day.

Reprinted here with full credit to LIHERALD;

We all think it: Memorial Day symbolizes the start of summer. For many Americans it means dusting off the grill and making the pool water sparkle. It means big sales at the stores. It means hot dogs, baseball and a three-day weekend.

It means that spring is on its way out and the hazy, lazy, crazy days of summer are on the way in.And yes, many of us get a lump in our throats as we watch from our lawn chairs as our veterans parade by — some marching in uniform, some riding in antique vehicles. Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service. They gave their lives for their county, and never came home from war. They never saw their families again.

Memorial Day — originally called Decoration Day — was first observed on May 30, 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. New York was the first state to officially recognize the holiday, in 1873, and by 1890 it was observed by all of the northern states. (The South at first refused, honoring its dead separately until after World War I, when the holiday widened its focus from the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war.)

Many of us have forgotten the true meaning of the day. While countless cities, towns and villages still stage Memorial Day parades, many have not held one in decades.

To help remind Americans of the holiday’s true meaning, a National Moment of Remembrance resolution was passed 10 years ago, suggesting that at 3 p.m. local time, Americans observe a moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a few seconds of silence or to listen to taps.

And so Rational Nation USA pauses in memory of, and in honor of all Americans who have fallen defending liberty. Our nation and it's founding values have survived because of the men and women who have placed the principal of freedom above personal safety.

Even during the time of our Civil War the values were the same on both sides. The difference rested in the interpretation of, and the application of these principals to the realities of the time.

It is because of the validity of, and the inherent strength of our founding values this nation of free peoples has survived. Let us not forget our founding principals.... ever.

As a "real true conservative/libertarian American", one who was born on the western seashores of this great nation, one who lived for a brief period of time in the mid west, and one who ultimately settled on the east cost I have a unique American perspective. One I am sure the flaming liberals, as well as the reactionary right will agree to disagree with.

I am not a politician, although I know I could represent the American "perspective" better than most politicians today. I say this because America is being divided along racial, ethnic, religious, geographical, and philosophical lines that are tearing this nation apart. Rather than finding common ground that is American at the core, politicians both democratic and republican are exploiting differences for the sole purpose of political advantage.

The vision our founders held for their fledgling republic was that it would continue to grow in the reality that individual effort and ingenuity, combined with a government who would play a distant but watchful roll to insure individual liberty would insure our continued existence as a free nation. A nation born of the enlightened ideal the rights of individual, as well as the individual rights to liberty, transcended the state.

The founders were right in 1776 and their vision remains right today, regardless of what the extreme left or extreme right may have us believe. And so I read with interest the article by Jacob Weinberg. It is a far representation of the geographical differences (philosophical for purpose of this commentary) that often divide our people. The point being made is of course specifically aimed at the Republican Party and it's divisions. However, the point can very well be made with respect to the Democratic party as well.

Our nation is a diverse blend of political ideology and purpose. The nation state we inherited, and have since inhabited, was founded on the belief individual rights which includes the rights of ownership both individual and business, to engage in free and mutually beneficial trade without the interference of the federal government.

Jacob Weinberg stated it well with the following;

"Goldwater didn't care about religion—he was a Jewish Episcopalian who once said that Jerry Falwell deserved a kick in the nuts. He wasn't focused on racial politics—there aren't many black people in Arizona. What mattered to him was limiting government and preserving liberty. To Goldwater, political freedom was inseparable from economic freedom, a view distilled in his most famous phrase, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." To call this politics Western is a matter of its Bonanzastyle as well as its anti-statist substance. Goldwater boasted a Navajo tattoo and liked flying planes, shooting guns, and playing the tables in Las Vegas."

Goldwater was a western individualist who by no means held beliefs that were atypical of America. He merely was more adept at enunciating the virtue and values of freedom and the individualized liberty that naturally follows. His unfortunate loss to LBJ was the result of progressive/socialist lies that had no basis in fact.

But I digress from the original intent of this post. Which is just this... America is indeed a diverse nation with diverse views. Having traveled and lived in many regions of our country I know that the majority of Americans love and respect the values this nation stands for. I also know the emotionalism we all experience from time to time stands in the way of finding the mutually shared common ground we as Americans can agree to stand proud on. It is time Americans from all sides of the political spectrum realize America, her heritage and vision can be a beacon of hope for not only future generations of Americans, but the world at large as well.

However, only if we allow the other nations to decide for themselves. Not unlike this nation chose to do in 1776.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

This morning I caught Jonathan Hoenig (left) on Fox News' Cashin' In. I transcribed while enjoying a cup of Saturday morning java:

"Social Security by definition is a Ponzi scheme. It is Bernie Madoff on the largest scale, they lock you up for things like this. There is no savings, there is no investment, there's no ownership, no account with your name on it - there's just looting you today with the promise that they will loot future generations on your behalf."

Jonathan is just my kind of guy. Leftist talk show host Mark Liven (spelling?) followed Hoenig's statement by saying,

"Don't worry, the law says that you are required to get Social Security, the only way that you won't get Social Security is if Republicans are elected and they do what Jonathan wants."

I wish that were true. Any student of history will note that Republicans have done quite the opposite. Mark is also woefully ignorant of history. Cato's Michael Tanner explains:

Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

Glenn Beck, conservative television and radio show host, showed his lack of sensitivity when he used President Obama's daughter Malia as a prop (if you will) to jab the president over the BP oil spill.

It is all good and well to be critical of this president for his performance or lack thereof with respect to this issue. It is fine to hit the president hard if one wishes. Even James Carville, one of the lefts biggest loudmouths trashed the president on public TV for his handling of the disaster.

Perhaps, as some are saying the disaster in the gulf may very well be Obama's Katrina. If it becomes a political liability it can be argued that it is deserved. However, this is not the point of this post and I have digressed.

Beck was wrong, flat wrong in using Malia to make fun of the President. The President's children, should be off limits period. The use of children in any way shape or form to make a political statements, or as in this case a prop, is lacking any class and frankly borders on being crass.

Beck who often is spot on with his political commentary and historical perspective, won no points on this one. If anything he simply gave the left a valid point on which to hammer him with. It is proper that Mr. Beck offered his apology for a foolish and childish radio spot. Let's hope he learns something with this one.

BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter-- (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: It's so stupid.

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?

GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, thirteen, one's eleven, or something.

BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!

BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are -- Daddy, why don't you just put her in some sort of a camp?

And now the apology:

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.

Hopefully Beck is sincere in his apology. It is stunts such as this one that give rise, and justifiably so, to the generally groundless allegations that conservatives are wackos.

Friday, May 28, 2010

.......you witness one that takes the cake and outdoes them all. Knowing that Obama's handling of the gulf oil spill has been nearly the disaster that the oil spill itself has been has pushed Obama (five weeks after the Deepwater Horizon explosion) to flounderingly move to plan b. Plan b. as explained by Carol at No Sheeples Here is as follows:

BP, the oil company taking flak for its inconsistent response to the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, bused in 400 extra cleanup workers to Grand Isle during President Obama's visit today, Jefferson Parish Council Chairman John Young said.

"It appears to have been a PR stunt by BP, not to say we don't appreciate the extra participation," Young said. "We certainly need them, but we don't need them for just one day that happens to coincide with a visit from the president.”Young said he saw the workers dressed in red shirts, blue jeans and black shrimp boots mulling across the beaches and in the mess hall during the president's appearance. They were uniformed in a way "which you don't normally see workers dressed like that," Young said.

After Obama's departure, Young said, the work crews all but vanished.

I've seen a lot in this man's disastrous short tenure so far but this may top them all.

Simply. Unreal.

From a vantage point of righteous indignation, not to mention anger, No Sheeples Here brandished forth this amazing video:

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another....

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensable nation" be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.

Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who decided to cancel a New York fund-raiser only after the press reported that she planned to attend.

But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: when you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.

He was supposed to be competent. He was supposed to part the Red Sea. He was sold as the Messiah, after all. Alas he has proven to be the worst President this nation has ever witnessed and we are not even half way there yet.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

I have become much less supportive if Glenn Beck over the years, and have in fact been critical of him on occasion. Bet when a person is right they are right,. Beck's characterization of the the progressives indoctrination of American children is absolutely accurate and truthful.

Speaking as someone going back forty hears to his high school graduation I know this indoctrination has been going on for many years. I was subjected to it as well as every other public school student. That's not to say all teachers were bent on indoctrinating students in progressive/socialist thought, but many were. And such it remains today, only it is more pervasive.

Revisionist history was gaining increasing support in the late sixties and early seventies. I actually had high school teachers and college professors who spoke to the issue of revisionism. Revisionism and indoctrination has become part of the national progressive/socialist's movement to make over America for quite a long time.

Beck is right on this.Although the progressive and socialists will argue vehemently this is not so. In fact I predict they will resort to many inaccurate characterizations of Glenn Beck as well as myself.

So be it. The truth is the truth. And millions upon millions in America know truth.

Here are some thoughts from Joe Scarborough on what Republicans must do to regain a leadership role and take back control over the levers of government. He makes his case in remarks delivered at the Cato Institute.

Mr. Scarborough makes many good points. His conservative perspective is just plain old common sense. Whether the Republican party power base will pay attention is questionable.

Rand Paul, not libertarian enough? Perhaps so for some Kentucky libertarians, (AP/WaPo):

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A week after a come-from-behind victory over the GOP's establishment candidate in a Kentucky Senate primary, Rand Paul is facing a possible challenge by the Libertarian Party and is shaking up his staff after comments he made about racial segregation caused a firestorm.

Despite his pedigree as the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Libertarian Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Rand Paul has betrayed the party's values with stands he's taken, and they were considering finding a candidate to run for the seat.

It was a startling development that could play a role in shaping the outcome of the race in November by siphoning votes from Paul to the benefit of his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.

Here’s a good way for libertarians to prove they’re serious political actors: Mount a third-party challenge to their best shot at a Senate seat in ages because he — Ron Paul’s son — isn’t quite 99 and 44/100 percent pure.

I tend to agree with AllahPundit. Many in the libertarian party seem to be convinced that irrelevancy is the only option electorally.

Also, this is totally off topic but check out this Texas Paulista bumper sticker plastered car:

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Personally, I would rather not consider anything even remotely 'tongue in cheek' coming from Barney Frank. Regardless, (The Hill):

Tongue firmly in cheek, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Tuesday afternoon called on reporters to demand to see the birth certificate of new Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii).

As Djou (pictured here) was being sworn into office, Frank walked the hallway of the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor calling on the media to "do your job" and review Djou's papers.

It was a small bit of payback for the enormous amount of attention some conservatives (and the media) paid to the is-the-president-really-from-America controversy.

But, unlike the commander-in-chief, as Frank knows, being born outside the U.S. does not preclude you from becoming a member of Congress.

What an idiot. Also, due to a busy schedule here, the Left Coast Rebel forgo the chance to write of newly elected Rep. Charles Djou in Hawaii. This morning I caught Djou on Fox and Friends and he brilliantly stuck to basic fiscal responsibility, Tea Party principles.

I like the guy! And although he is simply filling out the term of 10-term congressman Neil Abercrombie (Djou will hold the seat until January, 2011) and he narrowly won in a 3 way race, his win was historic in it's importance.

He simply has a pleasant way about him and represents just what is needed. Here's Rep. Charles Djou's first House floor speech from yesterday:

Hawaii is a putrified liberal cesspool, welfare state. If they can send a guy like this to Congress and from the Obamanation's own home turf as well, then anything is possible.

It's pretty simple. Today's news of Obama's sudden toughness on the border (sending 1200 National Guardsmen) means nothing. Perhaps it has accomplished two things - the useful idiot press is parroting it as signifigant and it gives an appearance of being on the right side of the issue via. public opinion.

The Obama administration plans to announce Tuesday that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, an Arizona congresswoman said.

Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords also said in a statement released Tuesday that President Barack Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.

Part of Giffords’ district borders Mexico.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s spokesman said the governor hadn’t been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.

Nice that Gov. Jan Brewer wasn't told of the National Guard troops, I wonder why? Mexico itself proves the point that this is simply Obama Kabuki Theater. Always watch the right hand as the left hand tells you something the precise opposite. Get a load of this from the Mexican Embassy:

Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.

Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.

Mexico is determined to continue working on its side of the border to enhance the security and well-being of border communities, and to deter and dismantle organized crime and its links to drug trafficking and human smuggling.

As part of our joint strategy in the fight against transnational organized crime, there are actions that our two governments have undertaken together, and there are other measures taken independently by Mexico and by the US within their respective territories. In this regard, the Mexican Government fully respects the sovereign decisions of the US Government, but underscores that joint responsibility must continue to underpin our joint efforts in rolling-back transnational organized crime operating on both sides of the border.

Being a border state resident for 34 years now, I will tell you something with absolute certainty. If Obama's 'border plan' had teeth, the Mexican government would be screaming bloody murder.

Via Politico today a 'closed door meeting' today between Republican leadership luncheon and Obama. Cutting through the chaste I gleaned the money shot (as seen through the eyes of Senator Pat Robers, from the trending topic 'meeting':

"The more he talked, the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

The more he talked, the more he got upset. Call it the profile of a Dear Leader, if you will. I wonder if Senator Pat Roberts knows that this vehemency and condescension, hence anger, at 'the little people that just don't get it' from the Obamanation is leveled at anyone in his path. Be it the Tea Party, libertarians, independents, the Republicans in his way - it matters not. You just don't get how smart and superior He is and his agenda is 'for' America.

Also the press is pointing to a 'confrontation' between Obama and McCain on 'immigration.' Being that John 'Close the Border now that I want to be reelected' McAmnesty was at once to the left of the Obamanation on illegal immigration I find the Obama/McCain controversy to be contrived at best. Even more ludicrous, the Obamanation is so confident in his illegal immigration pandering proclivities that he has summoned an additional 1200 National Guardsmen to the border.

Given the fact the misfit fell all over himself to give kudos to the Mexican leader one has to wonder where his loyalties lie and why he doesn't pack up and move to Tijuana.

Given the fact Mexico has much stricter immigration policies than U.S. Federal Immigration law, or the Arizona law, wouldn't it seem highly rational and reasonable for Kennedy to take issue with Mexican laws since softness seems to be his calling. Further, Mexico has a horrendous record of abuse for people immigrating to the country illegally. Apparently Kennedy hasn't had time to educate himself enough to know or understand this..

Giving kudos to a foreign Head of State for undiplomatic behavior... oh to hell with that, it was outright outlandish behavior to lecture Americans on their home soil for immigration policies hugely more liberal than his own country was not enough for Patrick. He had to carry it to the extreme of actually trashing America in the process.

Here are excerpts from Kennedy's remarks when asked by CNSNews.com for his thoughts last week:

“Well, he’s right on, I mean, it violates the spirit of our own Constitution.

"So, you know, we had a tragic history in this country. The most shameful parts of our history were when we had our slave trade, when we, when we, the Trail of Tears--what we did to our Native Americans. And, you know, the proudest moments in our history are when we had the Civil Rights Act, when we moved forward on integration and expanding the opportunities for all of our citizens."

"So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction," said Kennedy. "It’s beneath us as a people.”

No person aware of American history would dispute we have some blemishes. All nations do, including Mexico. Most of the the blemishes the other nations have cause ours to pale in comparison. Because of the United States and the trillions of dollars it has given to foreign counties in aid, hundreds of thousands, if not millions have lived a life made a little better by American generosity.

So yeah, I and millions more Americans, conservative, Libertarian, and moderates, as well as some progressives are sick and tired of hearing this infantile drivel from a kid born with a golden spoon in his mouth.

But I have digressed. What amazes me that it is so difficult for the raging left to understand that we are talking About ILLEGAL ALIENS and the social and economic problems this causes our nation. Guess what people, if we don't get this problem under control, and keep it under control by enforcing the law, our problems will only worsen... and they may grow experientially.

Calderon was playing us for fools and to his own countries benefit. After all the more open the borders the fewer of his own he and his country will need to worry about. Let the benevolent and somewhat stupid Americans do it for them. Just to make something really clear here, I have stated it in prior posts on the subject of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION but it bears repeating, American businesses that hire illegals from anywhere on the globe must be severely penalized. Their actions are as unlawful, unethical, and immoral, as those of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT themselves, perhaps even more so.

Perhaps Calderon and his policy makers should look in their own backyard and question the reason(s) why their people want to leave in droves. And when they identify them do something about it. Our own President, a large share of Congress, and this one particular Congressman pandering to the Mexican government and people is not going to resolve this problem. Simply enforcing the current laws we have ignored for years would be an improvement.

It is time for the Patrick Kennedy's of this nation who have a leadership role to fill, to stand up as proud Americans and do something in conjunction with others to resolve this issue. The problem has been growing for over a quarter of a century and has only become worse under GWB and BHO. Hence the Arizona law. If the federal government doesn't act quickly and decisively to resolve the problem of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION more states will take action as Arizona did. It is with in their right to do so.

Monday, May 24, 2010

President Obama has once again reaffirmed his agenda of a one world order. One that will be controlled by a one world government and the oligarchy that controls it.

His recent statement that we are not defined by our borders but rather by our bonds was the precursor to statements in his speech at West Point. Make no mistake... It is the confirmation that Barrack Hussein Obama is the first post American president.

Obama's vision for an international order, one that eclipses border, language, and culture as so effectively and properly promoted by Micheal Savage, can only lead to European style socialism at best, and Soviet Style Communism at its worst.

America, should it follow the vision and path Obama has obviously chartered for this and future generations, will lose its identity and all that made this nation the fairest, most prosperous, most generous, and rational nation on earth.

Each person has their own viewpoints. The blending of various views has been part of what made this nation, a people that believe in individualism, the rule of law, a brand of liberty that demands allegiance to principals that exceed what the expediency of the moment may dictate.

The values my generation grew up learning, the values of past patriotic generations are slowly fading into memory. Barrack Hussein Obama is the steward that is knowingly and willingly steering this and future generations down the misguided path to One World Internationalism.

I weep for the nation that will be lost in the transition. I especially weep for my grandchild.

Note also the tone of continued and further intervention into the affairs of other nations. The military industrial complex will be preserved. However, it is likely that American troops will serve under the oversight of the inept and ineffective United Nations or some yet to be named world body. Whatever the case it is sure to be a disaster.

President Obama's course is clear. Whether the majority of Americans eventually recognize it remains to be seen.

This morning I was in the mood to check out the chatter over in progressive blog land. So, I dropped in at The Progressive. As suspected warnings are out not to underestimate the Tea Party movement or it's growing influence and successful candidates, including Rand Paul. For certain the progressive statist left is feeling threatened right now.

Their approach will be to use emotionalism and baseless claims in their attempt to discredit everything rational about the movement. Sometime in our history we either recognize that government has gotten too large, too intrusive, and too fiscally irresponsible and take steps to reign it in or we lose as a people. Just like Greece is losing now. The charade cannot continue.

In his May 20th short commentary Mathew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine had the following to say:

After Paul’s victory, it’s more likely than ever that Sarah Palin will be the nominee in 2012. And then anything can happen. Including her winning the White House.

Especially after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which will let corporate America pour billions into the election.

Rand Paul foreshadowed one ad that these corporate dollars are likely to buy: an ad that claims Obama is betraying America. “We now have,” Paul said, “a President who apologizes for America’s greatness.”

This tag, more than health care, more than the deficit, may be what ultimately costs Obama.So don’t take comfort in the craziness of Rand Paul, or the zaniness of Sarah Palin.

Watch out for them.

The progressive left is correct that the Liberty movement is gaining in strength. They are worried that it may overtake the freight train that is currently be guided and conducted by Obama, who is bent on dismantling as much of our national heritage as possible during his time at the helm.

The progressives are right, the movement is growing, what they fail to see is the reason the movement is growing. This good for Liberty, The Tea Party, and ultimately America.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Wella, Wella, Wella. We now have confirmation the White House, yes the very one the El Presidente resides in, making the attempt to bribe Joe Sestak from running against their darling chameleon Arlen Specter in the PA. democratic primary. The bribe, a job offer in the present corrupt administration.

Here's the video confirmation of this fact.

This should really come as no surprise actually. After all the current occupant of the Oval Office is the product of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country.

What amazes me is the republicans will apparently use this to go after Sestak in the general election. It seems to me they ought to be looking at criminal charges against the administration. Remember, the fish rots starting at the head.

Here is more from the RINO Republican leadership. And we actually believed at one time there was at least one party in America that stood for limited government. Guess we were wrong. Here is Lamar (the statist) Alexander almost advocating that the government take over BP.

Perhaps BP should be subject to greater scrutiny. But a government take over of the company? Welcome Bolshevism to America. The downward spiral continues. Soon we will all being wearing Red Shirts.

Okay, so now I'm beginning to get the picture. Rand Paul, the Libertarian Republican candidate for Senator from Kentucky, who actually stood on sound principals is only now beginning to get mainstream Republican party support.

Of course this will come at the expense of his once stated principals. Lamar Alexander, Republican Senator from Tennessee, a RINO leader stated in Face The Nation he can still support Paul even after his "mistake" on civil rights.

Here is what Alexander had to say:

"Even a very good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues," Alexander said of Paul, who recently won his primary campaign over the GOP's preferred candidate. "And that's what happened to him last week. If he'll stick to the jobs, debt and terror and providing a check-and-balance on a runaway government in Washington, he'll be the next Republican senator. We'll be glad to have him."

What Lamar is really saying here is that if Rand Paul sticks to the established RHINO agenda, and doesn't deviate from the party line he'll do just fine. More of the same old same old from the same old tired Republican party of the last fifteen or so years.

Principals, no matter how valid, gets lost in the battle to win at any cost. A sad state of affairs when winning trumps principals. Perhaps one day principals will finally trump winning. When that day comes we will have won America back from the statists that have controlled our government for far to many years.

I am not holding my breath. Rand Paul could have been part of that effort. Sadly it appears to be shaping up otherwise.

Before I start first let me reiterate I am a solid believer in the principals Rand Paul was addressing after his primary win last Tuesday in Kentucky.

The principal of private property, whether it be individual or business, and the inherent right to do with it as one pleases in so long as it does not threaten the life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness of another is a valid ethical and moral principal. Period. Government has no ethical basis on which to interfere.

At the same time Let me say Maddow's questioning was not unreasonable When a politician knowingly makes controversial statements they better be d*mn well ready and able to back their statements up with reasoned arguments. Rand Paul failed miserably in this arena. Not because the principals he was discussing were invalid, rather because he was not prepared for the obvious onslaught of questioning he received by Maddow, or the criticizes he has received by the compliant government media complex.

Now we have the poster girl of the Republican arm of the Tea Party movement claiming Maddow's questioning of Rand was prejudicial. Hello already. Isn't that what the media is supposed to do? Question the veracity of a candidates position? Isn't that what the conservatives wanted from the media during the 2008 campaign? Admittedly the media was soft on El Presidente Obama, but that isn't the point. Either you stand on principal (which cuts both ways) or don't stand at all.

Sarah Palin in here critique of Maddow's question had this:

"One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be," Palin said. "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment. And that evidently appears to be what they did with Rand Paul, and I'm thankful he clarified his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act."

Let's get one thing straight, Maddow is a horses arse when it comes to her positions on issues (of course this is my opinion and I am sure there are some who disagree) but she was being no more prejudiced in her questioning of Rand Paul than conservative commentator Glen Beck would be in his questioning of a leftist candidate.

If the principal is correct, and followed up by consistent and reasoned argument then the principal will eventually win the day. Rand Paul failed to stick to his underlying principal and began back pedaling almost immediately. In doing so he gave credibility to the to the liberal leftist argument.

Personally I believe... excuse me, know Maddow is a hack of the political left. However, Palin did little to help Rand Paul's case and in fact if I were of the left I would have asked the same questions. Frankly Paul has the more persuasive and compelling argument. He just did a lousy job of supporting it and his back pedaling will if anything hurt his credibility.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Attorney General Andrew Coumo has just announced his candidacy for the Governorship of New York State. A progressive from a very liberal progressive state he is likely, if elected, to play a major role in not only New York politics but national politics as well.

The video of him announcing his candidacy is boiler plate progressivism we have all heard before. Other than his statements with regards to the large banking firms and Wall Street Tycoons it is just an add for more and bigger government, his reference to the Declaration of Independence aside.

We have an El Presidente who believes nations are not defined by their borders (this presumably includes their national heritage as well) but rather by their bonds. This sure sounds like something from a liberal college focus group I once was forced to suffer through. The focus group was a bunch of crap and El Presidente is full of crap.

Nations are most certainly defined by their borders. Just as they are defined by their language and culture. Any national leader who is so foolish as to not recognize this simple truth does not deserves to lead this or any nation. So El Presidente, please do us all a favor and resign from office before you embarrass yourself further. Not to mention the national embarrassment you are to the American citizens you are supposed to represent and lead.

There can be only one purpose for having such a belief... To prepare the way for that glorious day that socialists and Marxists, as well as the world wide banking and moneyed interests are looking forward to. The one world order. The day the world has one currency, one government, and the day the when the independent nations of the world lose their sovereignty. When the free nations of the globe become a homogeneous blend with all those who have never really enjoyed the liberties we have in The United States of America.

El Presidente is nothing more than one of many so called leaders that are being manipulated by the powers in this nation and others. With his wonderful accommodation of The Mexican President this week, and his ridiculous statement he merely proved he is either a willing accomplice or a lot dumber than originally thought.

In either case the results are the same.

Here are some revealing insights into the positions of El Presidente.

Sure sounds like amnesty doesn't it? Just part of the borders don't define a nation ideology and plan for a One World Order.

El Presidente needs to visit the writings of a past progressive President of these United States... Teddy Roosevelt. At least he had a rational and correct view on the importance of immigration control and presumably of borders as well.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) is a flat-out, unadulterated, stud. And it's not only that he stands by a solid record of limited government credence, it's that he has the guts, gusto and brains to call things like they are when other so-called conservatives flee from 'conflict.' Enter the Obama/Calderon 'no borders to define us' axis of evil, Tom McClintock's take:

PS - the Left Coast Rebel motto, 'Freedom, Abundance, Responsibility is based on a speech given by Tom McClintock.

God forbid that any candidate to higher US office proclaim any other credo than the progressive-socialist dogma. God forbid that a humble man from a humble background that has never run for any office would be such an instant catch.

That just one candidate for the United States Senate in a small conservative state like Kentucky could elicit such a unanimous, lockstep, leftist reaction tells one all that is needed to know. And that is this:

Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Paul consistently led Conway prior to winning the Republican primary, but had never earned more than 50% support. Conway has been stuck in the 30s since the first of the year. Last month, Paul posted a 47% to 38% lead over the Democrat.

Alas, the neo-Bolshevik far left goes for the only tool left in their dying philosophy-arsenal. Today's nutroots chatter proves that in spades.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Tuesday was a very good day for those of us who support Rand Paul's Libertarian philosophy of governance. His belief in a limited federal government, fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and greater local control reverberates in most people that understand the values this nation was founded on.

The right to own and control one's own property, and or business, is one of the hallmarks of liberty, and it is as important to freedom as the right of free speech. Also at the core of this countries values is the belief in individual rights, and the governments responsibility to insure and preserve the rights of each individual.

Rand Paul, just two days after his blowout win in Kentucky's primary finds himself in a politically precarious spot... The result of his response to a question on civil rights and his belief the in rights of private sector business owners to serve who they please in a privately held business. The interview segment:

Rand Paul's response to the question has opened the floodgates to an onslaught of progressive criticism. Progressives have a deep distaste for Rand Paul's positions on nearly all levels. Most of which the majority of America, if they become familiar with his positions, will likely support on a broad basis. For the complete interview and a fuller understanding of the candidates positions click here.

For most, Rand Paul's remarks will likely be taken on an emotional level, at least until listened to again, perhaps more closely. Certainly the progressives will weigh his remarks from the emotionalism that civil rights and discrimination engender.

However, when separated from emotionalism and viewed in proper perceptive it should become clear Paul's remarks are founded in a philosophy that precludes one from acting in a discriminatory manner towards any individual.

Breaking it down...

Dr. Paul is a staunch believer in individual property rights and the right of the individual business owner to transact business with whomever that business owner so chooses.

He also believes it is not the federal governments proper domain to dictate to whom an individual business owner must trade in a free market.

Dr. Paul also believes that it is not good business to refuse the opportunity to anyone to engage in mutually beneficial trade.

At the same time he finds discrimination and racism reprehensible and disgusting. As any reasonable human being would.

He also believes the federal government has acted properly in enacting laws that prohibit discrimination in the public domain. This means of course where their is public funding of activities, in employment practices, in travel in public vehicles and on public through ways etc.

A note on employment in private business. Dr. Paul would find the enforcement of non discriminatory hiring practices by the government to be proper here as well because failing to do so would have the possible effect of limiting opportunity for certain segments of society.

No where in Rand Paul's remarks did he defend discrimination or racism. He clearly left no doubt that he is vehemently opposed to both and would, in his community stand up in opposition to both. He would do the same on the national stage as well as his core values demand it.

The progressives, and those who have blindly determined the Tea Party movement is racist and homophobic, will use Dr. Paul's remarks to label him as reactionary, racist, a throwback Neanderthal, or worse... Rather than viewing his remarks for what they are... Another very valid view of the federal governments proper place in a free society. One where free men and women of all creeds and color should be able to trade freely with others on a free market.

For progressives to disagree with, and strongly debate the issue(s) with Dr. Paul is proper and good. To inaccurately portray his values and beliefs for the sake of political advantage is evil. And this holds true for all political discourse or arguments.

For the record... I believe there are few in a civilized and enlightened society that have a problem eating with, working with, or socializing with those of different backgrounds, nationalities, or color. Dr. Paul it is clear, sits squarely with this belief as well.

LinkWithin

All that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former.James Madison

And so today I ask ask; " Wherein lies the accountability in this day and age of big government and growing statism."

Rational Nation USA

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.Thomas Jefferson